Interference No. 103,995 Paper 29
Morel v. Sekhar Page 40
filing date of its earlier patent application (07/898,052) (Paper 16). Sekhar has an earlier
date of constructive reduction to practice of the inventions of Counts 1 and 2 than Morel.
Thus, Sekhar is also entitled to prevail on the issue of priority; hence it is appropriate to
enter a final decision.5
Therefore, upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, it is:
ORDERED that Morel preliminary motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(f) is granted.
FURTHER ORDERED that Morel is entitled to benefit for the purpose of priority of
Morel French Application No. 93 01258 (MDEx 3).
FURTHER ORDERED that Morel preliminary motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(4)(c)
is denied.
FURTHER ORDERED that Sekhar preliminary motion 1 is granted.
FURTHER ORDERED that Morel claims 1, 3-5 and 9 are anticipated and,
therefore, unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 102.
FURTHER ORDERED that the subject matter of Morel claims 1-6 and 9 would
have been obvious and, therefore, Morel claims 1-6 and 9 are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. §
103.
FURTHER ORDERED that Morel preliminary motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) is
denied.
FURTHER ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Counts 1 and 2 (Paper 1,
Appendix 3) is awarded against junior party BERTRAND MOREL.
FURTHER ORDERED that Junior party BERTRAND MOREL is not entitled to a
5Attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and 37 CFR § 1.661.
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007